I follow some of your logic, particularly that about independent sources on the ground being the basis for any conclusions, but I disagree with some of your interim conclusions just the same.
The situation in Ukraine bears some resemblance to the situation in Syria. The US supports one side with weapons and training, but no boots on the ground (wink, wink - actually in both places we admit to having CIA and "advisors" on the ground but no major invasion). What both conflicts share is the 21st-century version of narrative control. Whose propaganda is stronger?
Assad is a brutal dictator known to disappear people and torture opponents. Hell, before he became an "enemy" of the US (and what a weird coincidence, that was right about the time Assad rejected the west's proposed gas pipeline plan through Syria!), Assad's Syria was used in the "war on terror" by Bush and co. to outsource torture in Syrian black sites.
Bashar al-Assad is brutal. Got that. His father was even worse, razing an entire city to make a point to dissidents (The Muslim Brotherhood, IIRC). What the Assad family ISN'T is stupid. That is how they have remained in power through the decades.
Syria was about to win the "civil war" (i.e. coup attempt). Then Trump announced he was going to pull our troops out of Syria. Then the US announced that the use of chemical weapons would be a red line for US action. And wouldn't you know it? Assad decided just then when he was about to win without the US entering the fight, to attack his own people in a chemical attack.
The four OPCW whistleblowers later debunked that story, but did the US even wait two weeks for any kind of independent investigation? Nope, we bombed a sovereign country without declaring war and without a UN mandate - clearly a war crime. That is the back story of Bucha.
When the story first broke, Russia went to the UN security council and requested a UN independent investigation. The UK (currently the rotating president) immediately said "No" supported by the US. To me that says A LOT about who wants the truth to come out.
The use of MAXAR satellite images was all the rage in framing the narrative of what happened at Bucha.
Here is a very long thread by someone clearly not supporting the Ukrainian / US version of events.
https://twitter.com/antiwar_soldier/status/1511086358110027791
The thread author gets a lot of pushback and responds (IMHO) pretty well.
There is no "slam dunk" evidence. But looking at everything I come to the following "likely" interim conclusion, pending further video evidence:
There were three basic sets of victims. One set had been there for weeks (10-20 of March) and left there (this is speculation) because the areas where they lay had little health risk and/or tactical risk for the occupiers if they are left on the street. One set was presented health and/or tactical risk and was put into mass graves. The final set was freshly dead (2-3 days) when the Ukrainian regular forces regained control of Bucha.
Set 1: Killed by both Russians and Ukrainians during fighting (collateral damage).
Set 2: Shelling by one side or the other killed a lot of civilians on the streets during the Russian occupation. Most likely Ukrainian shelling, but not on purpose, meaning no war crime, just a horrible tragedy of this horrible war.
Set 3: Russia did not "pull out with no notice." They had several days' notice (hell, I knew about it).
After Russia left, the mayor of Bucha was on camera discussing the liberation of the city. He did not mention systematic executions by the Russians. Not proof of Russian innocence, but if your city had been terrorized for weeks by Russian death squads, I would expect the mayor to at least mention that and/or thank the army for saving his people from Russian execution.
What DID happen is that two days before UKR regular forces came in, the Azov battalion came in to perform a "purging operation" of any remaining "Russian military and saboteurs." It is 1-2 days after this that the claims of Russian executions and photos started coming out. Countervailing evidence in the thread above.
Particularly important are the fresh blood, tied hands, and white armbands (Russian allied) of/on the victims.
Tying back to Syria and my (interim) conclusion. Russia occupied Bucha for weeks. They dug and filled mass graves with war dead. We hear in the news that Russia is going to pull back from around Kyiv, and a few days later that is exactly what happened.
The worst thing that can happen for Russia is more western involvement on the side of Ukraine. But we're to believe that after weeks in Bucha the Russians had NOT found out and killed Ukrainian spies/supporters, but instead waited until the last couple of days, or on their way out of town, and then not only didn't dispose of the bodies or even just burn them, but left them on the streets as clear evidence of war crimes. This is nearly exactly the narrative proven false in Syria.
The other narrative is that the 3rd set was Russian collaborators killed by Azov when they "purged" Bucha before regular UKR forces came in. There are multiple videos of these types of war crimes from Bucha by Azov themselves, and from other places in Ukraine.
So again, no "slam dunk." I don't think the Russians are "the good guys." But the evidence in Bucha leads me to conclude that was less likely that Russian regular forces were responsible and more likely known Nazi elements inside the Ukrainian forces.
Not a simple subject, thus the very long response!
